Tag Archives: biblical concepts

God’s Intention for Virginity and Marriage

Literature, , , , , ,
And the Related Issues of Divorce and Remarriage

by David E. Moss

Notice: Please read this article in its entirety in one sitting. This is necessary to appreciate the full context of each part. Please do not read only part of this article.

This decision to marry is the most significant and most intimate decision a human being has to make as an earthly creature. Thereupon, a man and a woman enter a relationship in which everything is shared, whether emotional, mental, spiritual — or physical. Since human beings possess some very private treasures (such as thought dreams, desires of the heart, spiritual beliefs and a physical body), it is normal, in society, to withhold those things from public view and to share some of them only with the dearest of friends. It is also normal to reserve one’s most intimate treasures for the person with whom a marriage trust is entered.

Some choose never to enter this sacred pact. All their lives they may live in chaste virginity and use their full energy to glorify God, or pursue personal interests. God grants this privilege to a few choice servants upon whom He bestows the gift of celibacy.

The rest, who are driven by the human passions that draw men and women together, seek a mate with whom to share all of oneself. It is a decision that irreversibly alters a person’s life; for once made, the individual will never be able to return to the state of virginity.

Marriage, thus, is a sacred institution. It is ordained by God. It is defined by divine words. And, it is governed by moral principles which man has no right to alter. As such, its value is immeasurable and it must be preserved in exactly the form in which it was given to the human race.

A large segment of humanity dismisses virginity and marriage as archaic and indulges in unrestricted licentious activity without regard to any code of morality. Such persons breeze in and out of marriage “contracts,” participate in impersonal sexual activities, and casually cross the lines of perversion as though they were meaningless forms of entertainment.

The world’s disorientation from the truth, however, is no basis for a child of God to rethink Biblical concepts. Unfortunately, this is happening in contemporary Christianity. With great skill, worldly people are able to make Christians of strong conviction sound unloving and even hateful. Many believers, failing to recognize the Devil’s game, would rather compromise their understanding of truth than appear antagonistic.

As this happens over a period of time, the restraining force of morality gradually disintegrates and society at large becomes increasingly more bold in its defiance of God’s intention for human relationships. Immoral and perverted forms of behavior assume the appearance of normalcy. They never are normal in terms of reality, but a corrupt society, in which right and wrong are fused together in a moral neutralism, has no means to perceive things from a divine viewpoint when God’s ambassadors surrender the standard.

For this reason, truth must be preached in every possible forum lest the same process inhibit the discernment powers of Christians. Redundancy is irrelevant because it would be better to have the message penetrate hearts through repetition than to speak insufficiently and lose all sense of divine morality in the minds of the next generation.

Young people must be taught that God intends for them to save virginity until marriage and to have a single marriage for life. To dangle alternatives before people in their formative years goes far beyond the risk of losing the sacredness of virginity and marriage. It teaches youth that God’s standards are relative and may be adjusted when they are not compatible with human experience. It dilutes the integrity of all absolute standards of righteousness and suggests that we do what God wants until it does not work and then we may change course and fend for ourselves.

Herein lies the expediency of the words that follow. Read on with a willingness to believe that God’s words are absolutely correct and that to uphold them is our sacred duty.

  • Virginity: A Divine Treasure

    God is emphatic concerning the sacredness of virginity. He declares it to be chaste (clean and pure) and insists that if given away, it be offered only to the person with whom one is joined in marriage (II Corinthians 11:2, Leviticus 21:13). Otherwise it is to be preserved intact.

    To underscore this sacredness, God ordered severe consequences for violating virginity. He said it is good for a man not to touch a woman outside of marriage. To do so is fornication – a sinful and morally unacceptable act (I Corinthians 7:1-2; Proverbs 7). In Jewish Law (which reflects God’s values), a man caught stealing a woman’s virginity was required to marry her or pay a full dowry if her father forbad the marriage (Exodus 22:16-17). A promiscuous girl could be stoned to death if she was not a virgin at the time of her marriage (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

    Maintaining one’s virginity throughout a life time is an immense task and must not be tried without the ability to shun all sexual interest. This ability is a divine gift. Without it, a person must marry (Matthew 19:11-12; I Corinthians 7:1-2). With it, a person is free to expend all of his energy caring for the things that belong to the Lord (I Corinthians 7:32).

  • Marriage: As God Intended It To Be

    For those who do not have the resources to remain celibate for a life time, Jesus very precisely stated God’s intention for marriage.

    Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:4-6

    Marriage is to consist of one man and one woman joined together in one relationship. Once they have experienced total intimacy of heart, soul and body, all the personal and private things of each are commonly shared and the two become one. This is to be a permanent relationship severed only by the physical death of one of the persons involved (Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39).

    So special is this consummation of two human beings that God uses it to illustrate the precious relationship between His Son and the Church (Ephesians 5:23-27). This is an indivisible union in which Christ takes the Church to himself as His bride. Christians who marry have the wonderful opportunity to portray to the world around them the unconditional love and imperishable commitment a believer enjoys with the Saviour. No greater achievement could be enjoyed in this world than to be a faithful husband or wife in a lifelong marriage.

  • Violations: Tampering With What God Intended

    It is extremely dangerous for man to tamper with what God intends. Jesus said that God is the one who puts two people together in a marriage relationship and man has no business dismantling what God has assembled (Matthew 19:6) or distorting what God has created (Matthew 19:9). As with virginity, God underscores the sacredness of marriage by establishing consequences for violating this covenantal trust. There are two ways that marriage can be violated.

    1. By Entering “Marriages” That Are Not Real Marriages

      One violation of the Divine intention for marriage is a form of fornication in which two people enter a relationship God says can never be a real marriage in His eyes. To define what He means, He outlined numerous relationships which fit this description. This list eliminates the union of two people who enjoy certain close family ties and the union of two people of the same sex (Leviticus 18). It is possible for people in these categories to enter a relationship which man calls “marriage”, even though God has labeled it fornication (e.g. I Corinthians 5:1 with Leviticus 18:8). However, man’s label does not overrule God’s label. God is so set against such unacceptable unions that they comprise the only situations in which He sanctions a “marriage” relationship to be severed (Matthew 19:9).

      [Please note in Matthew 19:9, Jesus says “except for fornication,” not “except for adultery.” This will be further explained below.]

    2. By the Violation of Real Marriages

      The other means of violating the sacredness of the marriage trust is to commit adultery. This is the term God uses to describe any act by which a married person involves himself sexually with someone other than the partner in his original marriage covenant including both unfaithfulness and remarriage. Remarriage though is treated less severely than unfaithfulness apparently because God has chosen to be merciful in cases where people at least attempt to follow legal procedures, even though these legal procedures are man made (Leviticus 20:10; Matthew 5:28; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). God is so adamant about this matter that He included a ban on adultery as one of the Ten Statutory Laws (Commandments) for mankind (Exodus 20).

      The point of adultery is that you can give your virginity only to one person. To offer your private treasures to a second person, even in a relationship which God otherwise recognizes as a real marriage, is an adulterous act in violation of the original marriage covenant (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). In His choice of words. Jesus said that God would recognize the severance of a marriage pact only in the case of fornication (a relationship which God says can never be a real marriage anyway). He did not say “except for adultery,” even though a popular interpretation of Christ’s words insists that He did. In fact, He said if a marriage was severed for any reason other than fornication, an unbiblical union, remarriage would be an adulterous act, the violation of a Biblical union (Matthew 19:9). The disciples were so astounded at this narrow exception clause that they declared it would be better never to get married than to be so confined to a single relationship (Matthew 19:10). Jesus cautioned them, however, that celibacy should never be tried by those to whom the gift had not been given (Matthew 19:11-12).

  • Consequences and Forgiveness

    Fornication and adultery are common to society and have been for a very long time. There are two forms of fornication: sexual activity outside of marriage and participation in a relationship which God says can never be a real marriage. There are two ways to commit adultery: by committing a sexual act or fantasy which violates a marriage covenant while the relationship is intact (including bigamy) and by entering into a second marriage relationship after divorce.

    Unfortunately, fornication and adultery are also becoming common to the Christian community. How is the Church to deal with its members who participate in such things?

    1. Concerning Both Forms of Fornication

      God has given some very definite procedures to follow when a person is found guilty of fornication. He is to be immediately separated from the fellowship of the Congregation and instructed concerning the seriousness of his sin. The purpose of these actions is to protect the sanctity of the group and to recover the wayward person from his spiritual crisis (I Corinthians 5; II Corinthians 2; II Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:3-5). Fornication is a very serious matter which God condemns extensively throughout scripture.

    2. Concerning the Violation of an Intact Marriage Relationship

      The Old Testament Law prescribed the severest of punishments for those who committed sexual acts with a person other than their marriage partner. The sentence was the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10, John 8:3-5). In the New Testament, Israel lacked the authority to enforce the death penalty without the approval of the Roman Government. This was not, however, an excuse to substitute divorce for death. By decreeing the death penalty, God was decreeing that He did not want adulterers running loose in society. Nor did He want the victims of adultery to remarry without a divinely approved termination of the original marriage.

      The Pharisees tested Christ on the subject by bringing a woman to Him who had been caught in the very act of adultery. In His famous reply, Jesus may have indicated by His writing on the ground that this woman was set up and the group of men were guilty of conspiracy, making them as guilty as she, or more so. This would explain their inability to cast stones upon one whom they had entrapped. Jesus let the woman go, but did not minimize the seriousness of adultery because he exhorted her never to do such a thing again to which we hoped she readily agreed (John 8:6-11).

    3. Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

      This is a most delicate matter. Many people, unbelievers and believers alike, enter into a second marriage without a working knowledge of Biblical teaching on the matter. Secular Law has made divorce very easy and the man-made contrivance of a bill of divorcement has always been for the purpose of freeing a person from one marriage to make them eligible for another.

      It sounds harsh and cruel to say that remarriage is an adulterous act because there are so many well meaning people who have entered second marriages with much better spouses than their first one was. Yet, this is the way God Himself describes it and short of changing the Word of God, we cannot get around it (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18).

      The popular trend is to be conciliatory by means of a generous interpretation of Christ’s exception clause in Matthew 19:9. The suggestion is that an act of fornication by one person in a legitimate marriage releases the other member of the marriage to find a new relationship. This argument is nullified, however, by the observation that Christ did not say “except for adultery” but He did say “except for fornication.” Every violation of a legitimate marriage is called adultery, not fornication. If sexual unfaithfulness to a legitimate marriage partner is what Christ meant, He would have said, “except it be for adultery.” Fornication, on the other hand consists of only two things, either a sexual act outside the context of marriage or an unbiblical union. The distinction between fornication and adultery has a very specific bearing on the meaning of what Christ said. Christ was teaching that God only sanctions the termination of unreal marriages. He never recognizes the termination of real marriages (Matthew 19:19:6,9) except by the death of one of the partners, either natural or by penalty for sin (Romans 7, Leviticus 20:10).

      Divorce is a man-made device, and it only works in the eyes of mankind. God does not recognize divorce as a termination of a marriage covenant; instead He hates divorce and repudiates it (Malachi 2:16).

      Divorce occurs because of the hardness of man’s heart (Matthew 19:8). Before the Jewish Law was instituted, man had already made the exercise a habit. So, God specified some regulations to minimize the harm done to women by unreasonable men, not to encourage divorce as an acceptable behaviour (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). In the New Testament, God instructed divorced persons to remain unmarried or be reconciled to each other (I Corinthians 7:11). Believers, He said, are not bound to contend a separation from an unbelieving spouse because peace facilitates a witness better than strife (I Corinthians 7:15-16). Once the departed spouse is saved, reconciliation will be easier. Remarriage to a different person, however, closes the door to reconciliation for ever; not an option suggested by God.

      [I Corinthians 7:27-28 is a context which addresses the activity of virgins and refers to engaged couples. Espousal in Biblical days was binding and required a Bill of Divorcement to terminate. Since the marriage was never consummated, the persons involved were still virgins after the divorce takes effect. Divorced virgins that marry do not sin because they are still virgins. It, therefore, cannot be used as a Scriptural approval of divorce and remarriage.]

      Indeed, those who are already divorced and remarried should not be branded with a scarlet letter. If they understand what God has said about the matter, if they have dealt with it in their own hearts before Him, and if they remain committed to uphold God’s ideals for marriage in their current relationship, there is no reason why their status should even be an issue in their fellowship and service within the Body of Christ. There is only a very narrow exception in cases where God has regulated the qualifications for certain offices.

      The consequence of remarriage is of a lesser degree than other forms of adultery. Instead of a punishment inflicted, it consists of a qualification removed. In the Old Testament, divorced women were ineligible as wives for priests. If a Levite were to marry such a woman he would be disqualified from serving (Leviticus 21:7). In the New Testament, men are disqualified from being either an Elder or Deacon if they marry while a former spouse is still living (giving him two wives in God’s eyes even though men may consider him to have only one). Also women are disqualified from being a widow indeed if she had married while a former spouse was still living (I Timothy 5:9).

      The delicacy of the matter is in assuring the comfortableness of forgiven Christians while at the same time upholding the standards that God has decreed. The welfare of the Christian community requires that we be able to have a rational discussion on such a sensitive subject without projecting personal criticism from one side or sensing personal offense on the other side. At some point in the discussion, it is essential for persons from every side to put away the biases of their personal experience and honestly address the statements of Scripture concerning virginity, marriage and related matters — and to do so on the basis of what God has actually said, not on the basis of what we want Him to have said.

    4. Forgiveness and Service

      Total forgiveness may be experienced by anyone who has committed either fornication or adultery. In the Corinthian Church of Biblical times, there were some who had committed fornication and others who were guilty of adultery. All of them, who had received Christ as their Saviour, had been washed clean of their sin, sanctified from their guilt and justified before God (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

      The only distinction is that forgiveness, while it restores fellowship, cannot restore qualification (Ezekiel 44:10-14). Anyone who is forgiven for any sin, regardless of its nature, may enjoy all of the fellowship of the Body of Christ and participate in its activities and service. But where God has specifically designated certain regulations for areas of service, such as Elders and Deacons, each person has only one opportunity in a life time to qualify. Regardless of which regulation has been violated, disqualification is permanent. Where God has not specified regulations for other areas of service, forgiven Christians may participate in a variety of Christian service activities, demonstrating how the grace of God has fully restored the individual to the fellowship of the Body of Christ.

      This is difficult for some wonderful Christian men because they have been disqualified from serving the highest offices in the Church before they even knew about the regulations. In gestures of generosity, many churches are setting aside these qualifications and letting men serve in spite of them. The gravity of such a move is that out of fairness, all other qualifications must also be set aside, creating a situation in which a church may be forced to accept ungodly and irresponsible men as its leaders. Or else, if other qualifications are not set aside, the church offends a segment of the Congregation because of its unfair, selective policies. Real fairness to the Body of Christ is to maintain all of the qualifications, even if this makes the number of potential leaders quite small and even if it means a particular man qualifies in every regard except one. Among all Christians, it is expedient that Elders and Deacons fulfill the mandate of the Old Testament Priests in demonstrating the difference between what is holy and what is unholy (Leviticus 10:10). This is not designed to offend men who just miss qualifying by one point. It is designed to show that God means what He says without exception.

Conclusion

Do we want our children to move closer to the things God desires for them or to move further away? Shall we set before them a set of ideals for which to strive? Or will we surrender to the hardness of man’s heart (for the sake of being humanly “realistic”) and teach our children a set of alternatives because they undoubtedly will need them?

Marriage is the most beautiful gift God ever made for human relationships. Virginity is the most precious possession He issued to human individuals. When He created them, God had a particular thing in mind for each. It is reasonable to want God’s original intention for these things to be the basis of the convictions we hand down to the next generation of the Body of Christ.

In a time when preacher after preacher is giving in and performing wedding ceremonies for people who have a former spouse still living, I refuse to do so. It is not because I do not love these people and do not want them to experience the blessings of a fruitful relationship. It is because I do not want to suggest to other people who are watching that marriage is a disposable item in God’s eyes. For those who are already divorced and remarried, we should express great compassion toward them and confirm our love to them so they may grow in Christ from this point forward. But for those who are considering divorcing their spouse, we must warn of its dangers and assist them in salvaging what God Himself joined together.

This is the most difficult article I will probably ever write in my life time because it addresses the most personal issues of life and because I know many people who read it will be personally affected by its content. If you have taken any of these words personally and they offend you, I apologize, for this is not my intent. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Biblical issues with you, if we can do it without regard to your personal experience. On the other hand, I cannot apologize for what I believe to be the plain words of Scripture. I invite you to read this article once again with an open Bible and an open heart and see for yourself if I have accurately represented God’s intention for virginity and marriage.

The Biblical Doctrine of Separation

Literature, ,

by David E. Moss

Separation is a Biblical Doctrine. It is derived from that part of Scripture which instructs us concerning the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error.

The practice of Separation is the means by which this difference is demonstrated. Acknowledging a difference is insufficient; it must be shown through some tangible means. Such difference is to be maintained by the people of God as they live in contrast to an
unregenerate world. It is also to be maintained among the people of God to prevent the infiltration of error (II Corinthians 6:17; Leviticus 10:10-11).

Separation has been practiced by God’s people in every era of human history: by the nation of Israel, by First Century Christians, by Reformers in the 1500’s, and by Believers in the early part of the Twentieth Century. It is not a new doctrine and it has perpetual relevance to every generation and to every culture.

Today, however, it is being questioned as a legitimate practice. There are those who seek to convince the people of God that loving toleration of error is more Christ-like than separating from it. Hence, in a time when it is politically incorrect to be against anything, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince Christians to be distinctive in this world.

It is time the people of God reaffirm that Separation is a Biblical Doctrine and be instructed in its particulars. The alternative is the road to apostasy: having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof – playing church, but lacking the dynamic of genuine faith which includes obedience.

  1. The Divine Roots to the Doctrine of Separation

    If separation is a Biblical Doctrine, then it originated in the heart of God, the author of Holy Scripture. To be true, it must also be part of God’s instruction to those who believe in Him. If He instructs His followers to be separated, then it must be something He practices Himself.

    In fact, God is the one who set the precedent for separation. Long before Scripture ever began to be recorded, God separated Himself from doctrinal error and the angelic creatures who insisted upon believing it. He demonstrated consistency in the way He treated mankind, who also changed their beliefs, resulting in their rebellious actions. Throughout the Word of God, our Divine Parent has instructed us concerning the expediency of separating from all those who have rejected the truth and pursued an imaginary alternative set of beliefs.

    1. Why Did God Separate Himself from Satan?

      As a citizen of heaven, Satan became guilty of perpetrating a serious doctrinal error. He misinterpreted the nature of God, supposing that it was achievable by a lesser creature such as himself (Isaiah 14:13-14). He convinced about one third of the angels that this was possible, bringing about the first theological division in the history of creation (Revelation 12:4).

      If doctrinal differences are not grounds for separation, why then did God not attempt to agree with Satan on the essentials? Why did God not set an example of conciliation and love above division?

      By separating Satan from Himself, our Heavenly Father established a Divine principle for all His creatures to follow. He did it Himself to demonstrate what is the right thing to do under such circumstances. This supreme example, set by the One whose image believers are to reflect, defined separation as a matter of great importance.

    2. Why Did God Separate Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

      Adam and Eve met a similar fate as Satan. They enjoyed a beautiful habitation called the Garden of Eden which must have seemed like Heaven on earth. However, they eventually found themselves separated from this place of peace and harmony by the decree of God.

      Also like Satan, Adam and Eve’s consequences were rooted in their adopting doctrinal error. The human race did not fall into disfavor with God by a mere act of disobedience. Their act of disobedience was a result of a false doctrine they were persuaded to believe. Influenced by the Diabolical one himself, our human parents came to believe that God did not have to be obeyed and that they could assume some form of deification themselves. Only after they believed these things did they eat of the forbidden tree.

      Here was God’s opportunity to show mankind that a little difference in belief should not hinder fellowship. Why did God not invite Adam and Eve to discuss the things which they still agreed upon? Why did He insist upon being so harsh and remove the first man and woman from their beautiful Garden?

      God acted consistently with the way He had treated Satan by demonstrating that doctrinal error has consequences. His compassionate heart, however, would not allow humanity to be sealed into such a condition (Genesis 3:22-24). Unlike His treatment of the fallen angels, the God of Grace and Mercy provided mankind with a means of redemption. He separated sinful man from fellowship with Himself but promised it could be renewed when man recanted his error and unequivocally agreed that God is right about everything. A human being could prove this faith by accepting God’s plan for redemption, but there was no room for compromise (Genesis 4).

    3. Why Did God Insist that Israel Be Separated from Other Nations?

      When God eventually chose a specific family on earth, through which to express His glory to the world, He gave them some instructions in this matter of separation. The children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not to inter-marry with people of other families or nations, and strangers who dwelt among them were to be distinguished from true Israelites. This was not rooted in an ethnic bias but in theological conviction (Deuteronomy 7:1-4; Exodus 29:33).

      Under modern standards, though, this makes God sound discriminatory and politically incorrect, because it is certainly not a policy of inclusivism or loving tolerance of differences. Present day “enlightened” theologians would certainly have accused God of being a right wing fundamentalist, bigoted and hateful, had they been positioned in ancient times as they are today.

      The essential element of faith, however, is believing that God is right about everything. Rather than questioning the wisdom of God (which is an act of doctrinal error), one must believe that God’s directives are pure and unquestionably justified.
      Consequently, when God says His people should separate themselves from those who believe false doctrines, it is a profoundly wise directive to be obeyed without hesitation or reservation. It is precisely what He did Himself in His relationship with Satan; and He
      consistently has given this instruction to His followers ever since.

    4. Why Does God Want the Church to Be Exclusive Rather than Inclusive?

      It is no surprise that the New Testament instruction to the Church includes the same principle of separation.

      …Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

      II Corinthians 6:16-18

      God insists that His people are to be an exclusive group. In the same context as the Scripture above, He says the Church is to exclude fellowship with unrighteousness, communion with darkness, concord wi th Belial, participation with infidels and agreement with idols.

      For the same reason that the Israelites were not to inter-marry with people who followed false religions, members of the Body of Christ are not to inter-mingle with the perpetrators of religious beliefs which contradict Scripture. The reason is that such contact exposes the believer of truth to the influence of error which is the first step towards the collapse of faith in God. For the strong in faith who might engage the error in battle, contact may be a plausible activity under the right circumstances. But for the weak in faith who are still learning the intricacies of truth, such contact could be irreversibly destructive.

      The application of separation thus understood, suggests a serious danger in true believers cooperating with adherents to false religions for any cause, including social activism. To be specific, marching arm in arm with believers of error in a protest against abortion, or rallying with the same in a movement to motivate men to responsible action, exposes the children of God to a confusion regarding truth. The cause may be just. But cooperation with error even for just causes is a compromise of God’s directive to be exclusive.

    Conclusion

    It is important to understand that separating from others stems more from what one believes than from how one behaves, because a person only behaves according to what he believes. Satan rebelled against God because he believed God was vulnerable. Adam and Eve disobeyed because they believed God’s Word was questionable. People act immorally because they have imagined vain beliefs about the human condition, about man’s origin and destiny, or about man’s accountability to God.

    It is also important to understand that separating from others is not an option. As God demonstrated it in His own conduct, He has commanded it for those who wish to reflect His image.

    The matter of separating from others is not questioned by all of God’s Children, but many struggle with how far to go in carrying it out. Some agree that Christians ought to be separated from the world, but not from worldly practices which are being brought into the church in immense proportions. Some agree that Christians ought to be separated from unbelievers, but not from anyone who uses the name of Christ, regardless of how they use it. Some, on the other hand insist that Christians not only are to be separated from the world and from unbelievers, but also from many who use the name of Christ in compromising ways. Still others insist that Christians ought to be separated from other Christians who are right about many things, but wrong about many others.

    It appears to be a dilemma, but only to those who fail to understand the true nature of God. God does not compromise on any issue. God never includes a single error in His fellowship. He is pure, holy, righteous, true and infinitely exclusive of their opposites — and His expectation of those who believe in Him is for the same.

    The bottom line is that a person who desires to please God can never be too exclusive in adhering to sound doctrine. Fellowship is not an option for those who believe the Word of God with those who clearly reject it.

  2. Should Some Christians be Separated from Other Christians?

    The word “separation” strikes a curious note in the Church of our modern world. For a very long time the Church divided itself into smaller and smaller groups called denominations and independent churches. In our time, however, the tide has turned. Instead of remaining divided, various segments of Christianity are moving toward closer association. It began when liberal churches were swept together in the ecumenical movement; but in more recent years, the rushing tide has reached into evangelical circles. Instead of frantically trying to define how they are different, large numbers of Christians are diligently searching for how they are the same.

    Certainly, the reunification of the Church would solve a very perplexing problem: diversity within the Church, which is a confusing puzzle to the world looking on. Under the label “Christianity” there are so many different doctrinal beliefs and convictions concerning behavior, that it makes people outside the Church hesitant to join something so diverse within itself. They are forced to wonder if all parts of Christianity can be equally valid, even though they contradict each other. And, if they are not, how does an outsider determine which version of Christianity is the true one, when the Church’s own members cannot agree?

    Ecumenists seek to address this problem by sorting through all existing dogmas and opinions, hoping to find common ground among Christians. The suggestion of this process is that the things Christians differ on are not essential to the definition of true Christianity. Supposedly, only those things upon which all Christians agree are essential to the faith and sufficient to define the Church for the world at large. But, because of the wide range of differences that exist, the common ground ends up being an extremely small piece of spiritual real estate. It is difficult to believe that something so small is sufficient to convince a skeptical world that Christendom’s substantial diversity does not matter. Besides, such a watered down, common ground version of Christianity cannot possibly be what God intended for the institution that would be the “pillar and ground of the truth” (I Timothy 4:15).

    The question we must address is whether we can afford to ignore any Scripture that is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness for the sake of unity. If God is right and the whole Bible fits into these categories, what man has the authority to decide that some truth may be sacrificed in order that disagreeing Christians may cooperate? The choice is clear — do we associate with everyone who calls himself a Christian because of a humanized ecumenical philosophy, or do we separate from some according to divine instruction in the Bible?

    Biblical Christianity prescribes both a proper association with adherents to a “like precious faith” and a proper separation from Christians who contradict their identity with the truth. Holy Scripture is clear in its instructions on how to maintain this balance in the Christian life.

    1. The True Basis of Separation

      For a Christian to know whether to associate with one person or to separate from another, it is essential for him to understand the principles upon which such choices may be made wisely. If he does not, he will have difficulty recognizing what endangers his purity. The 6 classic illustration for this point is that the United States Bureau of Printing and Engraving trains its employees to identity flaws in the newly printed dollar bills by exposing them in training sessions to perfect bills only! Once they are indoctrinated with a perfect standard, they have no difficulty identifying what is acceptable and what is not.

      So what is the basis upon which a Christian associates with or separates from certain individuals or organizations? It is a Biblically correct relationship with Jesus Christ — which is not as general a statement as it may seem. If the real Christ is in us and His real Spirit is expressing Himself through us, the outward characteristics of our Christianity, such as theology, behavior, appearance, etc., will conform from within to the values of Christ as defined by Scripture. Christ will not contradict Himself. Therefore, He will produce the same theology and the same behavior and the same life values in everyone who belongs to him. Thus, all those who have the real Christ will outwardly look very much like each other. Associations will be obvious because of the striking similarity. Separations will be easy because of the obvious differences.

      The flaw in the evangelical ecumenism being promoted today is that it uses an erroneous basis for getting together. Christian unity, they say, is not based upon the striking similarity of all those who belong to Jesus Christ, but upon the ability of those who use His name to lay aside their differences. This raises a serious question — from where do the differences come? They certainly do not come from Jesus Christ, because He would never lead two different people to believe contradictory things about himself or anything else. For at least one of any two contradictory beliefs, there must always be a source other than Christ. And if a
      “Christian” is being molded by a source other than Christ, one must be concerned about the effect this un-Christ influence will have on Christ’s true followers (Biblical Christians) if they join hands.

      The Bible cautions the disciples of Christ against associations with those who claim to follow the Lord but whose doctrine and behavior give evidence they really do not (I Corinthians 5:7-11; Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:7-9; Philippians 3:14-21; Colossians 2:4-8; II Thessalonians 3:6,14; II Peter 2:1-2; II John 10; Revelation 2:14,20). It also instructs that both the error and the people who proclaim it are clearly identified so that less discerning believers may guard against associating with potentially harmful influences. Paul said “mark them” (Romans 16:17) and “note that man” (II Thessalonians 3:14). Talking in generalities about those from whom believers ought to be separated is not always sufficient. Sometimes it is necessary to be very specific.

    2. The Personal Aspect of Separation

      The Scriptures talk about the togetherness of the people who make up the body of Christ. Ephesians 4:14-16 says it this way: “That we…may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” In other places, the Bible uses words like fellowship, unity, assembling together, and oneness of mind to emphasize the importance of the integration of believers. How sweet is the fellowship of the Saints! Or is it?

      The people who make up the Church of Jesus Christ are definitely not fitly joined together. Nor has there ever really been a time in which this has been the case. Since the Church at Corinth in the first century, there have been divisions and schisms among those who claim to be God’s people. How could it be that the group which is intended to be so much together could have so many lines of separation within it? Does the Bible really support such fragmentation? Or, has the doctrine of separation erroneously led to the departmentalization of all those who are truly part of the body of Christ?

      The Bible does indeed instruct Christians to separate from other Christians along two lines: (1) those who claim identity with Jesus Christ but fail to confirm that identity with purity in their behavior, and (2) those who claim identity with Jesus Christ but fail to confirm that identity with purity in what they believe.

      1. Separating from Disorderly Beleivers

        God’s Word is very clear regarding a believer’s withdrawal of fellowship from disorderly brethren. One category of this type is found in I Corinthians 5:11 where several behavioral problems are said to dictate separation: including fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness, and extortion. Another category of this type is found in II Thessalonians 3:6-15 where the disorderly brethren may not be committing heinous sins but they are failing to conform to Biblical instruction on responsible Christian behavior. These also are to be shunned.

        The purpose of such withdrawal is to impress the guilty person with the error of his ways and to direct him to re-evaluate his participation in such activities. Ultimately the separating believer is to seek an opportunity to offer forgiveness and comfort, confirming that the withdrawal of fellowship was based on love and not on snobbish piety (II Corinthians 2:6-8). This suggests that any association with disorderly Christians should be confined to exhortation and restoration ministries and not include recreation or fellowship.

        The moral dimension of Scripture requires that God’s children not touch the unclean thing (II Corinthians 6:17). Before we are saved we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). However, when we are born again by faith in Jesus Christ, we are made clean and our scarlet sinfulness is made white as snow (Isaiah 1:16-18). Being clothed with the cleanliness of God’s righteousness (II Corinthians 5:21), we are automatically separated from the filth of a world saturated with ungodliness (II Corinthians 6:14-16). It is our duty to honor our association with Jesus Christ by refraining even from an appearance of touching unclean things (I Thessalonians 5:22).

        Unfortunately, some Christians have the potential of bearing an immoral influence when they are guilty of unrestricted indulgence in the works of the flesh. It is, therefore, not safe to spend a lot of time with people like this, lest we be enticed by them to touch the unclean things which have spoiled their testimonies (I Corinthians 15:33).

      2. Separating from Doctrinally Impure Believers

        Separating from professing believers who are doctrinally impure is a much more intense situation. They may appear to be very moral people and upstanding members of the Christian community. Yet, fellowship and cooperative ministry between these people and Biblical Christians offers a serious threat to the integrity of the Church.

        The reason for separating along doctrinal lines involves a policy of protectionism. As Paul admonished the Corinthians, “I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (II Corinthians 11:3). Fellowship with those who fail the test of sound doctrine threatens the purity of those who pass. Separation is necessary in order to prevent the leaven of false doctrine from corrupting their minds.

        Laying aside doctrinal differences is not really a proof that we love one another anyway. Instead, it is a destructive force that eats away at the truth. Fellowship and cooperative ministry among those who disagree doctrinally waters down the value of the inerrancy of Scripture. A willingness to compromise what one believes communicates a lack of complete confidence in
        the words holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Are they true or not? If they are, they must be non-negotiable.

        The purpose of doctrinal separation is to challenge people to question the validity of what they believe. Ultimately, we hope for an opportunity to exhort and convince (II Timothy 2:24-26; Titus 1:9). Wisdom, of course, must be used in distinguishing between the opportunities to correct false doctrine and the danger it poses in a context of fellowship and cooperation. The only reason a Biblical Christian should have contact with adherents to false doctrine is to exhort, teach and rescue. All other contact risks the purity of what a Biblical Christian has obtained in Christ.

        Isolation from believers of false doctrine may be a necessary step. II John declares that such should not be received into one’s home, or into a local congregation. Romans 16:17 states that those who hold to contrary doctrine should be avoided. II Peter 2:1-3 proclaims that the failure to clean a house doctrinally can be destructive to the Body of Christ because of the contrary influence false teachers can have. These are all very definite statements about total avoidance of contact with those who promote unbiblical doctrine. They eliminate any and all forms of cooperation for the purpose of ministry or fellowship among those who do not agree doctrinally, regardless of how good the ecumenists make it sound.

    Conclusion

    The current fragmented state of the church is discouraging. Compacting is not happening. The joints are not supplying what is needed. There is ineffectual working in every part and the body at large is not being increased unto the edifying of itself in love. There is a real solution, however — accept the full volume of Holy Scripture as the exhaustive definition of true Christianity, full of doctrines to believe and guidelines for living: all of which is essential and none of which can be laid aside (II Timothy 3:16-17). Believe that true Christianity is thorough, substantive and authoritative; and, that it brings its adherents together, unified in their distinction from everything inside and outside the Church which does not agree.

    Separation for the Biblical Christian will be a logical outworking of his spiritual wisdom. He will understand its necessity to protect the weak, but he will constantly seek opportunity to admonish and correct the errant. He will know when and how to dine with sinners without damaging his identity and when it would be better to stay away. He will be able to discern when to associate with disobedient brethren, so that he may teach them the way more perfectly, and when to withdraw, demonstrating to them the error of their ways.

    His associations will also stem from a mature understanding of Biblical truth. They will be confined to those who are strikingly similar to himself and to those whose doctrine and living standards provide a compatibility that is natural and not forced by compromise.

    It is unfortunate that separation is as much a necessity in the Christian life as association, but real unity in the Body of Christ can only be secured by an unedited agreement in Biblical truth. The lesser process of agreeing on the essentials and elevating “love” above truth actually destroys the integrity of the Church rather than enhancing it. God Himself says it best in His own rhetorical question, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3).

I Corinthians 13

Uncategorized, , , ,

by David E. Moss

Love. It is the most electric concept known to man. It is the stuff by which every human relationship survives—or dissolves for lack of it. It is a many splendored thing. It is what the world needs, because without it, the human soul is utterly destitute.

But what is it?

Poets have written about it; philosophers have mused about it; and musicians have crooned about it through every generation of mankind. Yet love seems to remain so enigmatic.

The reason is simple. Man tends to seek a human definition to everything he experiences, but love defies a definition derived from a human context. Love is of God, because God is love (I John 4:7,8). If something is so intricately a part of the heart of God, any understanding of it must come directly from Him.

This makes His definition of love in I Corinthians 13 so significant. It is clear that God considers love to be the primary ingredient of the spiritual nature of His children. In fact, love is to our spiritual life what breathing is to our physical life.

  1. The Concept of Love

    1. !(çB0 (Agape)

      There are several Greek words in the New Testament that are translated as “love.” Agape is the one God chose to describe what flows from His heart. In secular usage, agape was an obscure word prior to its appearance in Scripture. The New Testament teaching concerning intimacy with God through the Gospel of Christ (symbolized by the renting of the Temple veil) deserved the coining of a new definition for a rare uncommon word. Agape’s importance was immortalized being used 116 times in the New Testament.

    2. Charity

      Fully twenty five percent of the time agape is translated “Charity” in the King James Version. The reason was to highlight and underscore the real concept of the word. With our modern technology, we can print the words of a text in several ways to bring special attention to it. We can underline words, type bold face letters, enlarge the letters, or use a different type of letter such as italics. In 1611, such devices were tedious and cumbersome. A much more convenient and colorful way to bring emphasis to a word was to use a synonym with a different flare. Whenever you read the word “Charity” in Scripture, it is unnecessary to reduce it to the more simplistic form “love.” In each instance, see the word as highlighted in some decorative fashion, emphasizing the real meaning of love.

      According to I Corinthians 13, Charity is supreme above all other spiritual talents granted to man. It excels speaking with the tongues of men and of angels. It is to be much preferred over the gift of prophecy and the ability to understand all mysteries and knowledge. It is even superior to the faith which has the capacity to remove mountains. And, it is of far greater value than any personal sacrifice a person might make such as distributing all his worldly goods to the poor or being martyred for his faith.

  2. The Elements of Love

    1. Charity suffereth long

      Charity has a fuse so long that no matter how difficult things become it never reaches the point of explosion. Love is so firmly committed to its object that it never reaches the point of saying, “I can’t take it any longer” or “I don’t need this”or “I have to have a life of my own.” Love is so firmly set that it cannot be persuaded to change its mind.

    2. Charity is kind

      Charity always uses gentle mannerisms, being concerned about how its actions will affect others. Character is a marvelous thing, but was meant to be distributed, not hoarded. Love cannot be harbored in a heart, but must be shared. When it is shared, it always acts in such a way which makes others comfortable and refreshed.

    3. Charity envieth not

      Charity never allows passions to generate negative energy, and never expresses resentment toward others. To wear envy in your heart is the same as wearing a sticker on your forehead that says “I am spiritually immature.” Envy creates an atmosphere of contention by hating others for having something it does not have. It seeks to destroy those who have prospered above it. Charity wants only to encourage and it delights in the prosperity of others.

    4. Charity vaunteth not itself

      Charity never over values self, makes a vain display of its own worth, or exaggerates its own accomplishments. Human nature considers importance in the eyes of others to be of great value. Unfortunately, human nature is willing to do anything in order to achieve this. You really are not acting in love if you claim undeserved credit in an attempt to gain more respect, or if you make exaggerated promises which you cannot keep in an attempt to make others feel good. Charity is content to be just what it is and nothing more.

    5. Charity is not puffed up

      Charity never pretends to be something it is not. There is no value in claiming victory when there is none, sounding tough when you are not, saying something is good when it is bad, or believing things that are not true. Charity is always honest and totally devoid of lying, prideful attitudes.

    6. Charity doth not behave itself unseemly

      Charity never does anything to cause others to blush. Excessiveness in any form is incompatible with the concept of love, whether it is the way a person dresses, or the way he behaves, or the way he talks. Charity will always demonstrate respect for the ones it loves and never cause them any embarrassment.

    7. Charity seeketh not her own

      Charity never desires what benefits itself without considering how this will affect others. If any one item in this list epitomizes the essence of love, it is this one. This strikes at the very heart of the divine law of love. Self seekers indulge in liberties at the expense of others. Charity is gratified by the advancement of others. It always seeks the welfare of others rather than of itself.

    8. Charity is not easily provoked

      Charity is not easily ignited to anger, and never starts emotional fires by its contentiousness. When a person is provoked, he has been pushed beyond his level of tolerance. Real love has such a high tolerance quotient, that it is like a candle that simply will not be lit. Charity renders conflict irrelevant because it refuses to participate.

    9. Charity thinketh no evil

      Charity does not keep a record of offenses, debts, faults, errors or mistakes. It never reminds persons about all the wrong things they have done. This is because Charity knows how to forgive. Forgiveness is a promise never to bring up the matter again. Charity keeps this promise unfailingly.

    10. Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity

      Charity takes no pleasure in morally corrupt ethics, and does not enjoy reports of wrong doing. Rejoicing in iniquity includes, (1) expecting to be rewarded for doing something wrong; (2) taking advantage of those who fail; (3) delighting in conspiracy; (4) taking pleasure in those that do things worthy of punishment; and (5) giving God credit for assisting in evil plans. Charity has impeccable ethics and separates itself from the willfulness of the depraved human heart. It takes pleasure in the forgiveness of God that delivers it from iniquity.

    11. Charity rejoiceth in the truth

      Charity elevates truth to the highest priority, and takes pleasure in things that are not afraid to be examined in the light. There are many negative things in life that are factual. But truth implies good quality that is unashamed when exposed to public scrutiny. Bad news may be factually accurate and thus generically true, but because it is not edifying, it cannot be considered truth. Truth welcomes scrutiny and loves to be examined. This is why Charity likes truth so much.

    12. Charity beareth all things

      Charity knows when to stop before its behavior becomes excessive. Love does not complain or make demands. Bearing all things is the quality of meekness, by which love keeps human impulsiveness in check. The notion that we should always speak our mind is not accurate. There is a time to speak and a time to keep silence. Charity knows when to put a lid on it.

    13. Charity believeth all things

      Charity knows the value of being able to believe in a person and practices trust. This is not gullibility. Charity does not let itself be easily deceived nor does it blindly believe what it knows to be untrue. But love does avoid skepticism, reluctance, and conditional belief. To say that Charity believes all things addresses the element of trust that makes a relationship unbreakable. It is the opposite of fear. It is the door of possibility. It is an imperishable commitment.

    14. Charity hopeth all things

      Charity refuses to let experience discourage its hope for tomorrow. It is eternally optimistic. Pessimism is like thirst. Thirst exists because of the lack of water. Pessimism exists because of the lack of hope. Charity knows the source of living water that will never run dry. It never gives up on the possibility that problems will be solved, wounds will be healed, and good feelings will ultimately prevail.

    15. Charity endureth all things

      Charity never lets irresponsible behavior influence its attitude toward the guilty person. Enduring all things is the supreme sacrifice that love makes in order to benefit the lives of others, even if they are your enemies. This is exactly the kind of love God directed toward us even while we were yet sinners. This expresses the unconditional nature of love that keeps two people bonded together for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health.

    16. Charity never faileth

      Charity never comes to an end. It does not know how to say, “I don’t love you anymore.”

Conclusion

A summary of I Corinthians 13

As great as these things are:

  • speaking languages few or no one can
  • understanding and being privy to new revelation
  • having a dynamic faith few ever experience
  • giving all you own to meet the needs of others
  • martyrdom

None of them have any real value unless the motivation for them is love. The very thing I may hope to accomplish without love is the very thing that is rendered meaningless without love.

Faith is the thing that connects us to the heart of God. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. Hope is the eye of faith, sustaining it through all that is unseen and uncertain, making it possible for us to believe that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

But love is the very heart of God. It is not a feeling, though exhilarating and refreshing feelings result from it. It is the talent to be selfless and to be sacrificially concerned with the welfare of others. It was the agape love of God that made it possible for His Son to selflessly make Himself of no reputation, to take upon Himself the form of a servant, and as a man, to humble Himself, being obedient unto death, not for any benefit to himself, but solely for the benefit of the lost souls of the human race.

The next time you say to any one, “I love you,” realize what you are telling them. By those three little words you are making a commitment. You are saying, “I promise always to maintain my composure, make you as comfortable as possible, delight in all your prosperity, be content with who I am, be honest about everything, never cause you embarrassment, seek your welfare above my own, refuse to participate in conflict, throw away the record of your mistakes, maintain the highest level of ethics, welcome examination,
know when to stop, build trust in our relationship, be optimistic, endure everything that threatens our relationship, and,
I will never stop doing all of these things.”

This is love.